Dear friends,
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has obtained the details of the judgment in which two human rights defenders Mr. Park Lae-Gun and Mr. Lee Jong-Hoi were given a three-year and one month jail sentence suspended for four years and a two-year jail sentence suspended for three years respectively. They played a role in creating a platform against eviction for members of the general public to hear the voices of the victim’s families. These families lost family members in protests against the eviction by the police, which was an operation of forced dispersal. An appeal was made and now a second trial is on the horizon.
CASE NARRATIVE:
As we wrote in the appeal in December 2010, the prosecutors argued with the court to impose four to five years imprisonment on Mr. Park Lae-Gun and Mr. Lee Jong-Hoi. They had helped the families who lost members protesting against eviction in the process of forcible dispersal by the police in January 2009. They wanted to commemorate the dead and let their voices be heard by the people and society in general. (AHRC-UAU-045-2010).
On January 24, 2011, the Seoul Central District Court delivered its judgment. Mr. Park Lae-Gun received a three-year and one month jail sentence suspended for four years and Mr. Lee Jong-Hoi received a two-year jail sentence suspended for three years.
The AHRC has since obtained the full text of the judgment which was mostly taken from the prosecutor’s statement against the two men.
As previously noted, the prosecutor failed to prove direct involvement of Mr Park and Mr. Lee in the violence caused by some individuals during the ceremony that the two men had organized. This took place from January 20 to March 28, 2009 and provided evidence as to whether or not traffic was completely obstructed.
Nonetheless, the two were convicted for violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act as well as the general obstruction of traffic ordinance.
Details of charges and application of the law are provided in the sample letter below.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Mr. Park Lae-Gun and Mr. Lee Jong-Hoi were arbitrarily detained from enjoying the freedoms of assembly and demonstration after they spent almost a year protesting inside the hospital morgue. They accompanied family members of the victims who died during protests against an eviction in Yongsan on 20 January, 2009(AHRC-UAC-007-2010).
People organized people’s tribunal on the death of evictees and the eviction process (AHRC-UAC-130-2009).
On January 20, 2009, five protesters and one police officer were killed and several others injured during police raids. People were forcibly evicted from their residences or work places under the name of ‘development’ or ‘redevelopment’ with no consultation or participation of the persons evicted. (AHRC-FUA-001-2009).
SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please send your letters to the authorities listed below.
Please be informed that the AHRC has also written a letter to the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders as well as the Working Group for Arbitrary Detention, requesting their intervention.
To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER
SAMPLE LETTER
Dear ___________,
SOUTH KOREA: Two human rights defenders should be free from legal action against them because of their help for the victims of eviction
Details of accused, sentences & case:
1) Mr. Park Lae-gun, 50 years, a human rights activist from the SARANGBANG Group for Human Rights; a three-year and one month jail sentence suspended for four years; 2010GODAN453, 2010GODAN685 (merged)
2) Mr. Lee Jong-hoi, 52 years, a human rights activist at the Korean Progressive Network Jinbonet; a two-year jail sentence suspended for three years; Criminal Court 12 of Seoul Central District Court; 2010GODAN453, 2010GODAN685 (merged)
Charges & trials: Criminal Court 12 of Seoul Central District Court, Judge Lee Suk-Yeon presiding, charged and sentenced Park and Lee on January 24, 2011 under the article 185 (General Obstruction of Traffic) and 30 (Co-Principals) of the Criminal Act; and article 22 (2), 5(1)((2)), 8(1)((1)), 23((1)) and 10 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act
I am saddened to hear that two human rights activists were sentenced on January 24, 2011 to long jail terms for alleged criminal offences. I am reliably informed that they were convicted before the court despite lack of evidence and misapplication of the law.
According to information received, the activists mentioned above received their sentences for the following reasons: they conspired to hold an assembly and demonstration which clearly poses a direct threat to public peace and order by inciting collective violence, threats, destruction, arson et al; they held a banned assembly and demonstration which is punishable under the Assembly and Demonstration Act and general obstruction of traffic. However, I do not agree with their criminalization for the following reasons:
1. With regard to their holding an illegal, violent assembly and demonstration—the two defenders organized assemblies to commemorate those who lost their lives in the process of a forcible dispersal by the police. The series of assemblies continued for about two months from January 23, 2009 to March 7, 2010. They suggested in the meantime, that participants hold peaceful demonstrations. They never encouraged them to take any violent action but rather tried to prevent the protesters from doing so. Regretfully, after the official commemoration ended, a limited number of participants, who were later punished according to the law, became violent. This was out of the control of the organizers. However, it was interpreted in such way to say that the two conspired to hold an assembly and demonstration that “clearly” poses a direct threat to public peace and order by inciting collective violence, threats, destruction, arson, etc. Even many police investigation reports supported the fact that the assemblies were held peacefully.
The question arises. Can any organizer who encourages a peaceful assembly or demonstration be punished for violent actions by any of the participants, especially if they are out of the organizers control? To my disappointment, it was decided that the organizer is liable for any act committed by any participant in the assembly. This is a narrow interpretation of the freedom of assembly and will discourage people from using and enjoying their right.
2. With regard to their holding a banned assembly and demonstration: the application for holding an assembly for a commemorative event was submitted to the responsible police station on January 31, February 7 and 21 and March 21. Approval was never given. The head of the police station adopted a policy that he would never allow any person to hold any assembly or demonstration relating to such a commemoration and therefore completely prohibited it. In addition, the police interpreted the reason for the prohibition at their own discretion, ‘it clearly poses a direct threat to public peace and order by inciting collective violence, threats, destruction, arson, etc.’
Under these circumstances, according to the police policy and narrow interpretation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, there is de facto no place for the victims of the families to go to lodge a complaint and seek justice.
3. During the commemorative assemblies held on January 23 and March 7, 2009, those who participated in the street protest allegedly partly occupied the road. According to the judgment, it was interpreted that they went to the street for a demonstration that caused obstruction of traffic that did not last long. For this reason, the two organizers were criminalized for encouraging people to obstruct the general traffic. When a peaceful demonstration is held on the street, it inevitably causes traffic obstruction for some time. This only demonstrates that the judgment was made beyond reasonable doubt by criminalizing the two organizers for the general obstruction of traffic.
Furthermore I am informed that the two, as human rights defenders, who organized peaceful assemblies, had had several meetings on how to do this in a peaceful manner. After all, this was done on behalf of victims of forcible eviction and families whose member lost their lives in the process of forcible dispersal by the police. Strangely, having such meetings for peaceful assemblies and demonstration was interpreted to mean that they were co-principals in illegal and violent assemblies and demonstrations and general obstruction of traffic. I regret to note that the positive points were not taken into consideration in the district court and their sentence was imposed with lack of evidence together with the application of the antiquated article 30 of the Criminal Act.
In light of the above, while Park and Lee are currently waiting further sentencing, pending a second trial, I hope that all the relevant points made above will be taken into consideration.
I ask the Minister of Justice and Prosecutor General not to apply the antiquated article 30 of the Criminal Act to any act which is stipulated under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and other international human rights norms and standards. In this respect, I note that the Republic of Korea is a state party to major international instruments including the ICCPR and a member of UN Human Rights Council, and I urge that it be responsible for implementing the protection and promotion of human rights.
Yours sincerely,
—————-
PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:
1. Mr. Lee Myung-Bak
President
1 Sejong-no, Jongno-gu
Seoul, 110-820
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Fax: +82 2 770 4751
E-mail: foreign@president.go.kr or president@cwd.go.kr or president@president.go.kr
2. Mr. Lee Gui-Nam
Minister of Justice
88 Gwanmon-ro, Gwachon-si
Gyonggi Province 427-760
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Tel: +82 2 503 7023
Fax: +82 2 2110 3079 / 503 7046
E-mail: webmaster@moj.go.kr
3. Mr. Kim Joon-Gyu
Prosecutor General
Supreme Prosecutor’s Office
1730-1, Seocho3-dong
Seocho-gu, Seoul
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Fax: +82 2 3480 2555
Tel: +82 2 3480 2000
E-mail: koreapros@spo.go.kr
Thank you.
Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrc.asia)
